Linked by John Finigan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC
Permalink for comment 310901
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-12-08
That's an interesting statement. Can you tell me where I can more information about the fact that ZFS doesn't require a cleaner ? "
Check this out:
http://blogs.sun.com/nico/entry/comparing_zfs_to_the_41
By saying that it doesn't require a cleaner, what I had in mind is that it isn't background garbage collected and does not treat the disk as a circular log of segments that are either clean or dirty. It is more like a versioned tree of blocks. By cleaner I mean an asynchronous daemon that eventually "gets around to" cleaning segments that are dirty.
However, I am always willing to learn something. Do you think this evaluation is incorrect? [/q]
As known, filesystems like ZFS and the Sprite LFS write data to a huge log. This log contains both data and metadata. I'm not a ZFS expert, but how can ZFS discover unreferenced blocks without rereading the metadata that was written earlier to the log (assuming that not all metadata fits in RAM) ?